RSA-1621- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Aryavir Arya CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment and decree dated District Judge, decree dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned trial plaintiff-respondent was dismissed. 2. No. 1-appellant appeal as to whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ba Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in ‘Mahesh judgment dated 14.05.2025. -2020 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Aryavir Arya CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. BR Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. SK Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-defendant No. 1 judgment and decree dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby its appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned trial respondent was dismissed. At the very outset, learned senior counsel for defendant appellant submits that the question of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ba Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another judgment dated 14.05.2025. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1621-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. BR Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. SK Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. No. 1 is in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional Gurugram, whereby its appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the outset, learned senior counsel for defendant that the question of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016, titled as Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide is in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional Gurugram, whereby its appeal against the judgment and Court in favour of the that the question of law involved in the present rred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the , titled as vide RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1621- 3. the aforesaid objection’, in case, the present second appeal judgment dated 14.05.2025 (supra) 4. and the suit filed by the plaintiff ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff take recourse to the appropriate remedy as law. 5. made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata respondent. 6. 07.07.2025 rishu -2020 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the plaintiff the aforesaid factual and legal position and submits that she has ‘no objection’, in case, the present second appeal judgment dated 14.05.2025 (supra). In view of the above, the present and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff take recourse to the appropriate remedy as It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff respondent. Pending application(s), if any, 07.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable sel for the plaintiff-respondent does not dispute position and submits that she has ‘no objection’, in case, the present second appeal is disposed of, in terms of present second appeal is allowed, respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff-respondent is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff- Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No does not dispute position and submits that she has ‘no in terms of respondent stands dismissed on the is at liberty to with It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.